Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

It is now. Now it is. Good evening. I would like to call the November 20th, 2025 regular meeting of the Milton Planning Commission to order. Would everyone please rise for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. This is a regular meeting of the Milton Planning Commission. I am chairperson Judy Birds. This is a seven member commission appointed by the city of Milton mayor and city council created for the purpose of holding public hearings and making recommendations on resoning use permits, concurrent variance applications, comprehensive land use plan and plan map and other related plans and amendments to the zoning ordinance. In attendance tonight, we have Commissioner Brian Mcnes, Commissioner Trey James, and Commissioner Fred Edwards. Constituting a quorum of this body. Absent this evening is Commissioner Vic Jones, Commissioner Kurt Noli, and Commissioner Sumit Shaw. Shaw, sorry, Sumit. The petitions will be heard in the sequence listed on the published agenda. I would like to acquaint you with some of the rules and procedures from conducting this meeting. The applicant and all those speaking in support of an application will be allowed a total of

10 minutes to present the petition. The applicant may choose to save some of the time for rebuttal following the presentation by the opposition. The opposition will be allowed a total of 10 minutes to present its position. And if time remains, the opposition will be allowed to rebut. Since the burden of proof is upon the applicant, the applicant will be allowed to make closing remarks provided time remains within the allotted time. The staff of the community development department will be keeping track of time and will inform you periodically of the remaining time for your presentation. Each speaker must fill out a speaker card. Do you want to wave what that card looks like, Robin? Okay. So each speaker must fill out a speaker card, the yellow cards by the agenda before speaking and leave it with a staff member of the community development department. All speakers will identify themselves by name, address, and organization if applicable before beginning their presentation. When any opponent of a re any opponent [laughter] of an resoning action has made within the two years immediately preceding the filing of the resoning action being opposed campaign contributions aggregating $250 or more to a local government official of the local government which will consider the application. It shall be duty the duty of the opponent to file a disclosure with the governing authority of the respective local government at least five days prior to the planning commission meeting. A violation of the relevant state statute constitutes a misdemeanor. Therefore, if you have contributed $250 or more to a council member and have not timely filed a disclosure prior to the planning commission meeting, the city attorney strongly suggests that you have someone else speak on your behalf. Each application has been properly filed

with the community development department. Signs have been posted at each site. The matter has been advertised and the notices have been mailed to the property owners affected by this zoning as required by the melting zoning ordinance. The planning commission's recommendation will be forward to the city of Milton mayor and city council for final disposition at a forthcoming meeting in the council chambers on January 5th, 2026. The community development department has reviewed each application in conjunction with various agencies and departments, both internal and external to the city, if applicable. The community development department's recommendations, findings, conclusions are here before us in written form, which has been made available to all petitioners and to the public. Demonstration of any sort within council chamber is prohibited. So, please refrain from any applause, dialogue with a person speaking, or outburst. Please turn off all cell phones or place them on silent. All remarks will be addressed by the planning commission. Please show the same respect to the person speaking that you will expect to receive yourself. In addition, the applicant shall not submit material to the planning commission during the meeting unless requested to do so by the commission. All material that wish you wish to be reviewed by the commission and consideration of your application should be submitted to the staff of the community development department to be included in the normal distribution of packages to the commission. Finally, to the applicant, if your petition is deferred by the planning commission in accordance with the Milton zoning ordinance, you are required to update or obtain a new sign for reposting. Failure to update or repost will result in further delay delay. There are no exceptions. Consideration and adoption of the agenda. Can I get a motion and a second

regarding the adoption of the agenda for the November 20th, 2025 regular planning commission meeting? Madame Chair, um can you include adding the uh general public comment? Yes. So, um I would like to note two things. One, I'd like to add a motion to add after the minutes the addition of general public comment and also and this is more of a FYI for anybody that might be in the audience. Um, way down at the bottom is a discussion of large lot incentives and that is going to be deferred tonight. So, if you're here for that, it's going to be deferred. We will have it on the agenda, but when we get to it, we're going to have a motion to defer. So, if I could get a motion to adopt the agenda with the change to add general public comment after the minutes. I'd like to make a motion to adopt the October 22 action minutes. No, the agenda or the agenda, sorry, as well as including the minutes from the general public comments. Second. Okay, just for clarification, it's a consideration and adoption of the agenda with the addition of general public comment after the minutes. That's what I thought I said, but that sounds better. That's what she said. That's [laughter] what she said. You You sound much better saying it that way. Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, it's been moved and seconded that we adopt the agenda with the change to add general public comment after consideration of the minutes. Any comments? Other comments? All in favor? I. Any opposed? That is approved. So, we had a motion from Commissioner Trey and a second from Commissioner Edwards.

Okay. Consideration of the minutes action items. Can I get a now? Can I get a motion and a second regarding the October 22nd, 2025 regular planning commission meeting action minutes? Motion to approve the minutes and actions of the October 22nd, 2025 meeting of the planning commission. Second. Okay. It's been moved from comm by Commissioner McNe, seconded by Commissioner James um to recommend approval of the minutes. Any discussion? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? That was unanimous. We have no preliminary plats tonight to consider. Uh we have no reszonings or use permits [clears throat] tonight to consider. Um we do however have four text amendments to consider. Are we doing general public comments? But we're going to do general public comment first. Is there any general public comment? Thank you. There is none. There is no general public comment. So moving on now we will get to the consideration of the text amendments. Um, the first amendment on tonight's agenda is for RZ25-08. It is a text amendment to section 3.14.4 building placement with respect to set setbacks in the AG1 district and section 8.8.19B.2 two and article 13 definitions in order to add setbacks for qualified subdivisions and pools to the unified development code for the city of Milton. I would like to call up Diana Wheeler, interim community development director to present the staff report for RZ2508. Good evening, Madame Chairman, members of the planning commission. This first item on your public hearing agenda is a

staffdriven item. Uh the purpose of which is to provide better design outcomes through flexibility in building placement in order to preserve trees and natural areas that minimize disturbance in rear yards without adding any number of lots without increasing density in any way above and beyond what is standard within AG1. The proposal is to provide um reduce setbacks in the front yard and increase rear setback within qualified subdivisions. And we'll talk about what that means. So a qualified subdivision in this case for this purpose only consists of residential lots that are less than 3 acres. So we're not talking about large lots. These are primarily 1 acre lots created by Platt with internal streets that do not provide for pass through access. In other words, they're basically enclosed subdivisions, usually with a culde-sac at the end, not always, but most of the time. And they're not along major thoroughares. So, the front setbacks uh only affect the neighborhood internally. You wouldn't see it from uh passing through um the area. The number of lots in qualified subdivisions shall not exceed the number of lots that can be reasonably created within an AG1 zone development with the standard setbacks at the same site location. And the reason for that is because yard setbacks, front, rear, all have to do with where the house is placed on the lot. It has nothing to do with how many lots. So the number of lots would be created under the normal AG development standards and then where the house could be placed is really what we're looking for flexibility on. And the reason for that is because if you think about it in any subdivision, most of the time the

front yard is just ornamental. The standard setback 60 ft um constitutes about 20% of the lot. to devote 20% of the law to something that's basically ornamental is a lot of property that's devoted for something that is really not all that functional. Meanwhile, folks are trying to put, you know, a lot of recreation, entertainment with pools and sports courts and other things in their backyard. And a lot of times what that means is that um they push those things very close to their neighbors. And so we get neighbors backyards very close to each other by allowing the houses to be closer to the street. There's a little bit more flexibility in what can happen in the backyard without having that neighborto neighbor potential for conflict. We also have the ability to save more trees that way. Now in the future um would we consider interparial access between some of these subdivisions? That's something to think about. But for right now, we want to look at graphically what we're talking about. So the existing code right now shown on your left and what it has in a 1acre lot with the house is a 60 foot front yard requirement. So you can't place the house closer than 60 ft to the street. And remember the the property line is not the pavement [laughter] edge of pavement. there's always that little bit of oftentimes 15 20 feet of rightway uh on a typical street. So the rear yard is a 50ft requirement and the pool only needs to be 10 ft from the property line. Doesn't leave a lot of space for preserving trees and allowing that separation between neighbors. We have two options for you to consider this evening. [clears throat] Option A would take those same setbacks and flip them. Instead of having 60 in

the front, the 60 would be in the back, the 50 would be in the front. And then in that scenario, by adding that additional 10 ft in the rear under option A, the pool would then move back a little further and that would allow for 15 feet at the very bottom right on along that rear property line to act as a a natural area. It would be a a a tree preserve area. It wouldn't be a buffer. It would just be an area where there could be some separation between neighbors. Option B for you to consider is it does essentially the same thing, but moves the building 10 ft even closer to the street. So instead of the traditional setback of 60 ft which you see on your left, option B allows the house to move within 40 ft of the front property line and that creates an opportunity for 70 ft in the rear. That 70 ft of separation between neighbors obviously creates significant uh separation and allows for greater privacy in the rear yard. Um, it also allows for a 30foot natural area to be preserved. And then the in the uh the pool would be 35 ft from the rear property line. Again, pushing the same activities that would be on the 1acre lot, just pushing it all a little bit forward, placing it towards the front of the property instead of towards the rear of the property. So this proposed tree protection natural area that we were talking about in both option A and B is to keep the trees that are in there that are currently on the property um to the greatest extent possible obviously. Now a fence could be installed along the rear property line but storm water management detention and grading would not be allowed within that

natural area. And as I mentioned, for uh the lots that have a 60- foot rear set back, the first 15 feet would be that natural area, the 70 foot rear setback would have a 30foot natural area along the back. And the text amendment would actually look like this. Um the format is the same that we currently have. And this is for option A. In a regular AG1 subdivision, there is a 60-foot front yard setback. And we would add the provision for a 50-foot minimum front yard in the qualified subdivision. And the qualified subdivision is defined at the very bottom. And it's basically what we talked about. It's lots that are less than 3 acres in size. And that the number of lots is the same as what is allowed in AG1 under the traditional setbacks. Um, this particular option, option A, calls for a 50-ft front yard setback and then the 60 ft rear setback, which I've previously described, and everything else stays the same. Swimming pools, of course, where there is a 50-ft front setback, instead of having that 10- foot setback from the rear property line, would then be moved further into the property with a 20 foot setback from the rear property line. For option B, you see it's the same language with the same setup. It's just that the front yard, instead of being the traditional 60 foot, could go up to 40 foot. And then the rear yard would be 70 ft. For the qualified subdivision, again, the same definition for the qualified subdivision. These are lots that are less than 3 acres in size. Same density that is allowed under the regular AG1 zoning. But if the 40ft front setback is used, then a 70ft rear

setback is required. And that last 30 ft next to the rear property line is preserved as a tree protection natural area. And in this case, where there's a 40ft front setback, there is a 35 foot setback for the pool from the rear property line. We presented this to our community at a CCIM meeting in October and there were a number of people there who expressed interest in discussing this proposal further um once it was explained and obviously there's uh a lot of information that needs to be shared and discussed uh in order to be able to determine if these sorts of changes are appropriate. Um, we however feel that it makes sense to do this uh because this allows for flexibility for us to look at individual lots and make a determination about what is the best design and placement for each lot as opposed to just having a standard because each lot really varies in terms of its site conditions. And it would be nice to have that flexibility with the homes. And ultimately the goal is to reduce the number of variances that we get for swimming pools and other encroachments and rear yard setbacks because people don't have the flexibility now and it creates some hardships occasionally. So that concludes my presentation. If you have questions I'd be happy to answer them. So Diana, do you envision we keep the current which is the 60? Yes. and then possibly add both option A and option B. No, no. The discussion for for your consideration this evening is one or the other. If you would recommend one or the other. Um we don't we don't need to have

that much flexibility. We need to have some. um we've got the standard which we will maintain and then in certain situations we would like to have the flexibility of having one or the other. If you feel that option B it maybe is too much the homes are too close to the road or you don't feel comfortable with that then option A gives you the ability to simply flip the existing setbacks um and it's a modified version. Obviously with option B there is greater flexibility. there's more preservation of trees in the backyard, but it's up to you to to provide us with the guidance of what you think would be the best scenario in addition to the standard that we already have. Can we leave the three the three scenarios up just for reference? Could you put up the chart that shows the A, B, and C side by side? There we go. And how how many qualified subdivisions exist today? You know, I don't I don't know. We haven't counted them, but a lot. I just I'm not familiar with it would be I would think it would be quite a few because every subdivision with a culde-sac at the end. Okay. That would be less than three acres would qualify. So is the idea here for example number would all these all be because they just have one entrance? Would these all be 25 houses or less? Or could it be more because that other entrance isn't really an entrance. It's It could be more emergency. Okay, that's right. It could be more. But I um I just want to be clear, this doesn't apply to anything that exists. This would only be for newly platted subdivisions. So we don't want somebody to come in that's lived in a subdivision for 20 years and say, you know, there's

an older home here. We want to demolish it and build a new house and have that one house look different than the rest in the subdivision. So this would have to be for the entire subdivision when they're newly formed and created and the builder comes in and builds them all the same way. Got it. Yep. Uh flag lots then would not fall into this category. Flag lots the the setbacks on those would have to be determined administratively because there is so much variation in how they're configured. They would qualify for it would if it it if it's part of the subdivision, right? Then that front setback would be determined administratively at the time of the preliminary plat which you all would see and be able to evaluate. I [clears throat] just want to do a little correction. Uh recently with our flag lot text amendment, we don't allow flag lots and subdivisions. So it shouldn't be an issue. It won't be an issue for the future. Good. So qualified subdivisions don't exist today. They would only be on the go forward. That's right. And then there aren't [clears throat] there aren't a ton of properties that are yet to be developed. Correct. I mean, there could be there could be quite a few areas where always potential. I mean, we've seen we have currently in the works several subdivisions that are that would have qualified under this scenario. Do we have any samples or or examples of the a 40ft setback? I think about the little road on uh on the way into Avalon that has all the houses right up next to the road. I don't know how far back those are, but do we have any other examples of a 40 foot setback on the front? So, we were trying to get together some examples to compare the 40 with the 50

and because the 40 foot setback is within typically gated subdivisions with oneacre lots, so we couldn't get to them and So it's we have a couple pictures of 50 foot but not the 40 foot. So so think about the fact that most streets let's say are paved 22 to 23 24 ft but the right of way is 50 ft. So you've got 12 13 14 ft whatever beyond the pavement that's right ofway. So 40 feet, you're not going to really see a scenario unless it's not in a typical subdivision where from the road you measure 40T. It's actually going to be at least 50 to 55 ft from the pavement because of the ride ofway that adds. So it's not quite right up to the street. some scenarios where you have, for example, um, and I can't think of a specific one, but if it were like um, in a more urban setting where you've got, you know, development that's off the back of a sidewalk, for example, within a downtown area, that would be a certain distance specifically to the front of the house. But in every case here, the road is not paved to the width of the ride ofway. So, it's always going to appear more than 40 feet. So, it's going to look like 52 feet. Exactly. Are there any downsides to option B that it's just an aesthetic It's just an aesthetic issue. Okay. So, this would start going forward. [clears throat] In other words, if it's under development right now [cough] that's been approved but hadn't been built, does it that qualify or is it

when they come in for a new development that would take place? There are some that are in development or in the process of being developed right now that are a little too far along. But if they're not too far along, then these changes could be made. And Robin, the one on Hopewell Road past our subdivision that's up in the So that's Crescent Ridge and it's zoned R3A. So it's a little bit of apples and oranges. Um [laughter] it's not the same as AG1 subdivision. Okay. So Diana, I'm going to throw a little wrench. Okay. Yeah, they do. Yeah, I think it's they're like away. Personally, you know what I find too is somewhat is the topography of the land. If the house is a bit above street level, 50 feet looks longer. There's just a perspective. Whereas, if it's below grade level, it somehow makes it seem closer. Um, but I'm still somewhat comfortable with a 50 feet. I think it still will look gracious enough um especially if it's going to be inside a subdivision, not along um a major road, but I'd like to see there may be situations where it makes sense to do option B. And I guess the approach for option B is, oh, if you want option B, you have to file for variance and go through and get city council to approve it. Um, or alternatively, we could say you can that it's up to you as the community development manager in your discretion

to decide to allow option B. So it it could be you can do option A. That's kind of like you can do exist and you can do option A, but give you the discretion if you see circumstances where B makes sense. And it might even be too within a subdivision. B makes sense on these three lots but not on the other seven. Mhm. Um and not have to go through and do a lot of, you know, allow you and your staff's judgment if you want to deploy be in certain circumstances where you think it fits because of topography, because of all sorts of what's behind it and all sorts of things. Um, so rather than say, oh, if you want option B, you need a variance, you know, leave that up to staff discretion is where I am. But I don't know how we cotify that. [laughter] But I think, you know, I think we can say or maybe we say it's up to the [clears throat] community development director to utilize option A or B at their discretion. and obviously looking to you and your staff to you be more discretionary on option B. The good news is we'll see it all on the preliminary plat and we can say yeah option B makes sense there or no this doesn't that doesn't make sense there and oh it's being proposed but no it just doesn't look right it's going to just be too wonky but I'm kind of comfortable with a um I'm comfortable with a but I'd like you to give you the description to use B. I feel the same. Let let me jump in a little bit on the discretion. Just there's a concept in the law that you can't give unfettered

discretion to administrative personnel. Uh the idea is you need to give them a set of guidelines on which they're going to make their decision. So yeah, if that is the direction that you would like to go and that the city council decides to go, we'll need to um provide some guidance with respect to when when they should allow it, when they shouldn't allow it. Um I think a lot of it though is it's topography. It's the surrounding consideration of the surrounding areas. Um where it is even within you know sometimes too even you know, they might want to do option B because the backyard is a major thoroughfare and they want to buffer it. You know, a major being like Taylor Glenn or something like that. So, um, if that means we have to develop that, but there are other things in the UDC where it says at the discretion of the community development director. So, it's not like we never say that. Judy, what what happens if um we go to B and they say u this individual could um build the pool and they allow the 70 foot. And couple weeks later, somebody comes in in the same subdivision and wants to put a pool in, but doing what you're saying with the topography in that, then they would probably say no. Well, they can put the pool in, but they're either under 20 foot or 10 foot setbacks because depending on where their front set is. Yeah.

Okay. So, in the undisturbed area, I I know what the definition of undisturbed is logically, [clears throat] but if the homeowner wanted to plant screening between their home and the neighbor, could they plant trees inside the undisturbed? They could. It's not undisturbed. It's a tree preservation area. Okay. So, they can put more buffer there. They can put Yes, they can add planting if it's sparse, for sure. Um, but the objective is to try to create that greater green separation between neighbors. Okay. I I want to disagree a little bit on the A versus B. I just think I don't know that there's a significant I don't perceive a significant difference between what would be 52 feet on B perception to the eye would be 52 feet versus 62 feet because if you include the right of way of 12 ft I just don't know that that's oh huge difference visually even with topography I I don't know. But it's already 72 feet today. Yeah. Right. So, you're taking it from 72 to 50 to 20. Yeah. Um I'm one of those that it's it's the [clears throat] it may sense in some circumstances, but I wouldn't necessarily want it to become a standard for the subdivisions that they're all 40t. That's why I was asking what the like the frequency would be like how how routine would this become [clears throat] you know we've seen one set of variances where it was requested to do it um I think it having those options if I remember a couple years ago we

where we had one and it was like they had the 60oot setback so we kind of said you need to put this is like the first couple months I was on it was like well you're going to have to put a covenant that says you can't put a pool because you don't have room in the backyard, right? Um so and I think we've seen the idea of of backyard recreation becoming more prevalent. Um so so it's a it's a matter of that. So but we still need to do public comment. So maybe we should do that and uh then if we have any more questions but I think we have some clarification of if we did want to allow It it the idea was to allow one more option and if we wanted to put the discretion we'd have to form some guidelines around it. Certainly if if discretion comes into play then we would want to say they have the discretion to do it if [snorts] X or when why. Yep. Any more questions directly for staff? Of course we can ask them again after public comment. Okay. Um, so I'm going to open the public hearing regarding text amendment RZ2508. Um, those speaking in support of the text amendment will have a time limit of two 10 minutes unless the motion is approved by the commission to extend the time limit. Um, are there how many members of the public want to speak? Uh, four speaker cards, Madame Chair. Two in uh support and two in opposition. Okay. I'll keep time as well and if you want to extend it if needed. Yeah, we can. As you said, so you have the first um public comment card is Tom and Kim Gagger. Yeah, just as a reminder, if you approach the um podium, identify yourself with your name, address, andor organization. So, I think we've called the Gogers. Yeah.

Again, we are Tom and Kim Goggger. We live at 14700 Taylor Valley Way in Milton, of course. And you know us, we this will be our sixth meeting um that we have attended once we found out about the proposed development in phase two of Little River Estates. And while I know your considerations tonight will be citywide, our interests of course are are really focused greatly on our concerns with regard to our backyard and the setbacks in our backyard. So we come at it from that perspective. Um, you know, as you know, we've been very engaged and very invested in the development process, in particular with this phase 2 development and in the city in general. And for the most part, I think all of us here, the ones opposed and the ones in support of remain so frustrated that we were all sold on a five lot estates lot and we were surprised with the 10 lot plan. So our frustration that you hear is centered on that and it appears that uh we will not have a resolution of that in our favor. At this point the best thing that we can do as direct adjacent property owners directly behind what will be five homes in a beautifully wooded area. The best that we can do is support uh option B. And the reason for our support of option B is it provides us with relief in 10 significant ways. And I can show that to you if I can do this, but I wasn't good at it last time. for you. [clears throat] [snorts]

Not bad. Yep. Okay. So, you all know us. You've heard about our concerns. you know that in order for the original plat to go through, it would be clearing nearly every tree by the time they got the septic systems in and did what they needed to do. So, we were desperate for relief. The city provided us with an option last night in a community I guess it would be called a community meeting uh where we all met. They actually gave us kind of a opportunity for us to imagine something that would be [clears throat] more agreeable to us and we are greatly appreciative of the opportunity to have this considered. If we push the front set back down to 40 feet and the rear setback then becomes 70 ft, we receive double the tree buffer. It goes well actually more than double triple triple the tree buffer. We go from 10 ft to 30 feet of tree protection. I know they don't want me to call it a buffer. I keep saying that and that's the wrong word. They've said tree protection. So the trees that are there will remain there. It will be an undisturbed zone. So as you can see number three on that list is the natural area requirements are increased from 10 to 30 feet in an undisturbed setback. In addition, pool setbacks will be moved from 10 feet to 35 feet. That's a tremendous difference to us. Um, also the structures with roofs must be 70 feet from the rear property line. That is a big difference from the from the 50 ft that are is existing under the code today. Our particular plat also has unique circumstances and this really speaks to what Miss Birds is saying that she would like the city to have the opportunity to consider unique circumstances and those truly exist on this plat here

are some of the unique circumstances. It's very steeped and so the pitch is great. There is 90 ft of a drop from where the first house is going to go to where the last one is. It flows into the river. There are significant drainage and hydraology issues on this land. So, in order to make that work, they were going to run a drainage, I don't know if it was like a ditch or a gully between the house and the back of their lot. You saw that on that 10 lot plaid and commented on that in your last meeting. How was this going to work? This is a reason in particular why this land is unique and we would you know we would ask you to consider option B as a way to relieve us of our significant concerns. Um in addition the primary septic system can't be installed in the undisturbed area which pushes it forward. We understand they may be a secondary septics option in that area but that would only be cleared if the primary septic failed. So we're, you know, we're preserving a lot of the trees. So all of this has provided us with an opportunity on this very unique property, the way it's sloped, the way it runs into the river with some relief. Yes, we're still very unhappy about the fact that we're even talking about it. We're unhappy about the fact that some of our friends that we've met at all these meetings are going to come up here and say that they want to preserve that front setback. And I understand their reasons, but we are directly behind it. We are on a pies-shaped lot at the end of a culde-sac in Taylor Glenn. Our pies-shaped lot will touch three other homes on this plat. We will have five homes directly behind us. We're in a unique situation here and we'll be greatly impacted by the clearing of many of these trees and five homes directly behind us. So, the city is offering something that relieves us. If

[clears throat] they have to receive, if they have to give this to us by variances, we're going to push for those variances. It would be more ideal, I would think, for the city to have an option to do this to relieve us as they have suggested. Um, and there may be other lots and other special circumstances where this actually applies. In addition, if you know, if you've driven through um Little River phase one and two, you would note that this is at the end of a culde-sac in the back of the neighborhood. The rest of the neighborhood will not be driving through this. Um it's not something that they will see unless they're driving into the back of the neighborhood. It's not something that anyone else will see except for the homeowners themselves who live at that end. Additionally, we have learned that variances have been granted like this. For example, the home right at the beginning of that cul I'm sorry that culde-sac also received a variance and pushed the house forward and they did that for reasons because the curve of the road. So there are circumstances where this type of variance has been utilized. We were also told there are other neighborhoods in Milton where this has been utilized. triple crown, white columns. Um, some of those other places have actually utilized variances in order to make this happen. We would prefer that the city have this tool in their tool belt to provide us with some relief, you know, by way of tree barriers and and we're greatly in support of option B for these reasons. Thank you. Thank you. Thank us again. Yeah, good to see you, Robin. Next speaker. Yes. [clears throat] Um, we have another speaker. Oh, we have another speaker. It is George B Miller. Chairwoman, council members, staff, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm George [snorts] Beriller. My wife Lisa and I, we live at 14708 Taylor Valleyway, right next to the Gaggers

there. So, we're on the north side of the uh phase 2 uh plan for Little River Estates. And uh Kim touched on everything that I could uh describe and we just want to also add our voices to support for option B. Um when we learned we had the good fortune of getting 10 new neighbors directly to our south. Um [snorts] uh we kind of uh were taken back. But if if you think about it, we're the poster children of what this variance who it would help. If you look at that diagram with A, B, and C or not, but the three houses, we we're each going to have three homes right behind us. So to have that ability to increase the barrier between homes is uh of great benefit to us. I mean, we have the most skin in the game with those houses directly behind our properties. So, uh, I just would like to voice our support for option B for the flexibility, uh, and uh, for our benefit too as well. And I do understand the the folks that, you know, it's it's not going to affect them as much, but it it does change for phase one. But, I mean, we it's going to affect us the most, I think. Anyone else in Thanks, George. support. No one else in support. Okay. Um, is there anyone in opposition that needs to speak? We do have uh two comment cards in opposition. The first one is Mark San Fratello. Bratello. Yes. Okay. And just a reminder, those [clears throat] speaking in opposition will have a combined time limit of 10 minutes unless a motion is approved by the commission to extend the time limit. As a reminder, please announce your

name. Yes, of course. I'll I'll get under the time limit to you. Um, good evening, Madam Chairwoman, committee. My name is Mark Sanfitello. I live in phase one of uh Little River Estates 300 Blackberry Ridge Trail. I've been there two years and it's uh it's been quite an odyssey here these last few weeks. Um as a phase one homeowner, um every home obviously built in phase one with the exception of the the home that was mentioned has got that 50 foot uh 60 existing 60 foot requirement. And um my concerns relate to fairness and the impact on on our community. Um it's my strong preference to maintain the 60 foot standard, but amongst the options that have been presented tonight. Um I think for reasons you can probably assume um I strongly favor and and urge the committee to to approve option A and option A only. I I'll begin with the issue in fairness. I didn't have the opportunity to review the amendment and didn't know that this would really only impact interior uh interior neighborhoods. Um, while that's understandable, I do think it creates an inconsistency um with the neighborhoods throughout Milton. That is a consider consideration for this committee. [clears throat] But reducing the setback to 40 ft um would create a significant and really a permanent inconsistency in our neighborhood. Uh phase one, as you know, was built with the 60-oot setback and every homeowner purchased their home. Um with the clear expectation that the standard that had been defined would be consistent throughout. Um under the proposal, um this neighborhood would be a roughly 5050 split between homes with a 60-oot setback and now a 40 foot setback. Um

and there there are studies even though it's intuitive that show that there is an impact on neighborhoods uh where there is inconsistency in the setback. I do think that's a consideration for the committee. Um it creates a mixed quality in streetscapes and it it it does depress uh home values. That's that's not hypothetical. That's how the market behaves uh when there's an inconsistency that's this obvious uh in in any neighborhood. Um, as was mentioned earlier, and I I do regret that I'm I'm in opposition and and at odds with neighbors that I've met that, you know, we had a shared interest in uh in in the initial plan coming to light of those those five homes that were presented. But as you know, those five five homes were presented in June. Um, and uh it this 40-foot setback idea is the output of a creative process. I think honestly to find a way to make these 10 homes fit and to make it work with drainage, secondary septic, um with really no consideration for the impact on the existing community and and the the phase one community that is there. um homeowners relied both on the city's zoning consistency uh in their the purchase decisions and also on the representations of the developer here that um you know for reasons that um I'm I'm not sure I'll ever know why uh changed the plan completely. Um, so I I I will just say that while I strongly prefer the existing 60-foot requirement and with respect and difference to my neighbors to the north, um, I I recognize the the commission is likely uh and may seek a balanced approach here. And if a reduction is deemed necessary, I would I would ask

and urge you to um a minimum acceptable change of 50 ft for the front setback. Um and I I I just would appeal to your sense of fairness and what's happened uh around this development uh and the impact on the broader Milton community um with with setbacks that will diminish by this much um into the future. So, thank you for your attention. Thanks for your service to Milton. Appreciate it. Next. Okay. The next speaker in opposition is Dan Skinner. I am Dan Dan Skinner. I live at 220 Blackberry Ridge Trail, which is in phase one. Uh when we bought we were presented that it would e the phase two would either be three lots or uh three acre lots. There would be three houses or five houses was going to be three or five. Now out of the blue it came became 10. Uh so I guess we're you know the subdivision should be consistent in my opinion. So, our phase one is 60 ft except for the the one that had a variance because of the street. Uh, so my preference was to leave it uh in this subdivision until it's complete at 60 ft for the the new 10 houses they're talking about. I think if you go to 40, you're going to be encouraging front entry driveways, which is not attractive in my opinion. So, please make a note of that. Um, you're going to be just like look at Avalon. Those are front entry driveways because they have 40 feet. They don't have enough room to turn around. So, but Mark, our neighbor, and again, I understand where you're coming from. I

appreciate it, but I I would be willing to to concede to do the 50-foot on the 10 houses as a compromise. So, thank you for your time and I hope you consider that. Thank you. Any other public comment? No more public comment on this item. Okay, that concludes public comment. Um, does commission have any questions for the speakers or staff regarding this item? I have one. Um, by adding the language on the back strip with trees, does that mean the septic has to be in front of that? Does that mean that septic cannot go there? That's correct. The septic system cannot go in that tree um preserve area. The primary or the secondary, but the secondary could um but only the primary, as you know, is built. Okay. Oh. [clears throat] I guess both of those make uh a lot of sense. Um the front entry point does um bother me that this could open the door for front garages. So I'll ask staff Tracy. I always thought it was the width of the lot that dictated side entry more than the front. Is that is that Tracy? [laughter]

I'm chair, you are correct. Yes. So, these lots would be a minimum of 150 ft in width. Um, traditionally our architectural standards that we work with applicants, we do not encourage front entry. So, we envision and at the price point of these homes, we would envision a side entry garage. Well, you envision that, but is it permitted? Yeah, it's it's the covenants of that subdivision. I would imagine call for no front. So, you're saying they have to well possibly [clears throat] come for a variance which you and turn down. We don't we don't have any regulations in AG1 to go against front entry garages, but as Commissioner Mcnes said, I'm sure there's architectural requirements within the sub little river estates that would require to be minimum. That's something that the community could speak to the developer about, but we can't force people to do side entry. But at the same time, it doesn't make sense to to waste a front yard when you have 150 ft of width on a lot. Typically, we we have an issue with front entry when you have a very narrow lot. And that's why in our formbbased code, we [clears throat] have that encouragement of rear loaded with an alley. But there is that option available [clears throat] now to have front entry. Right. Right. From our zoning code, we don't exclude. So whether we go to 70 or to uh 40 didn't go make a difference if they wanted a front entry. Yep. Correct. And it's really the width

that of the lot that allows for the side entry and the positioning of the structure itself. And yeah, but if the covenants of the neighborhood don't allow for it. Yeah. There is another point. Correct. Right. Yeah. I so often too see like the two or three cars are on the side and then there's one that is front facing sometimes. So um you see that as well. Um but that's more like you said forward. [laughter] Yeah, that would be more HOA. It isn't in our code. So, um, any other questions? Um, I guess I have a question for Paul to say if we wanted to see this administrative variance allowance or discretion of the community development director in certain circumstances to use option B. What you're saying is we need to say in these certain in these circumstances she could consider option B. Yeah. I mean really it should be what circumstances should she allow it? The [clears throat] any other questions for staff or the speakers? No questions. Yeah. Do do we need to is it clear enough in our other codes or in the way this is worded that they cannot put sept primary septic in that setback if they go with the 50-foot option. Well, we will certainly put it in this language. Okay. We can certainly add it. Are we in discussion now? Just No, this is us. We can still add to that. I haven't so technically still in public comment.

Okay, any other questions for staff? Okay, that will then close the public hearing. Um, if we can get a motion regarding RZ2508, I know, but maybe before we get there, I'd like to take kind of a pulse. I'm sensing kind of like option A is okay with everybody. with some conditions or are you pushing for B all the way to B? I'd like to propose option C [laughter] because I mean I get like I'm very appreciative of the comment because I can't really see. It was helpful to talk to you guys prior to understand the logic and I can see it seeing the photos that you showed. We're basically making lemonade out of lemons cuz 10 is not preferable. Five is preferable. So now like what's left is how do we make the best I totally see the issue of the value of the homes going down if you reduce the frontage too much. I hadn't considered that earlier. But I also like more tree buffer. So you know this is pretty straightforward. Can we split the difference? Instead of instead of 50 ft versus 40t, can we call it 45 is option C in the front and then 25 in the back? I don't know that it significantly changes either, but then it keeps us out of the business of all the language that it's going to take to do conditional things for staff. And then the setback for the pool would be 25 ft. Well, because if you're saying 45, then how far then is it 22.5 ft for the tree? Yeah. I don't know how to do that math. [laughter] Everything just gets reduced by 5T.

5T I think. It just moves it around. Okay. So, if we do 45 ft, then it would be the pool would have to be 30. 30 and the buffer area is 25. The buffer is 25. And then the neighbors can still like each other maybe. And then we don't get into this. So they can still do 60 6050 and then option C 45 in the front 65 in the back. Yeah. [clears throat] And then with a 25 25 for the pool and reserve 20 and or 30 for the pool and 25 for the reserve. You want to Paul, any thoughts on that? Uh if you're busy just changing the numbers, that's certainly within your prerogative to recommend. Okay. Would you like to make a motion on a recommendation? I just want to make a comment. What I'm struggling with, and I'd like I'd like to hear what I'm struggling with is a citywide amendment that is seeming to just apply to this specific situation. Well, that's what it feels like all the way around. Oh, no. it would be citywide that that would be an option because effectively they did it with a variance in another subdivision. And to me this, you know, we have these variances that are granted today to go to 40 ft in certain situations. And then I so so I struggle with just having a city-wide amendment that applies to all citywide developments going forward which is basically in response to a very specific situation that we happen to be facing in Little River Estates in Taylor Glenn right now. But I think that yeah, I think the same arguments would apply everywhere though of you're balancing home values with

privacy and also to the increasing desire to have more recreation in the back. the play with us, the you know patios, the somehow if you've got the impervious space the basketball you know the pickle the basketball court I won't get into pickle ball but this idea that says give up a bit of the front which as you said you know as someone made the point isn't that useful and give a little bit more in the back I agree with that or um my personal opinion would be that option B should only be on an on a exception basis and that's where we provide instructions or guidance about when well and that's where Trey is saying don't do A or B do one that's halfway in between 45 ft in the front 65 in the back with a pool that is 30 ft from in the back lot and 25 ft of tree buffer and that would be and then we don't we don't have to give we don't have to give instructions to the staff on when to consider it. It's just an option that's in the arsenal. That's that is the option as opposed to A or B. It's what you called it C. Yeah. [clears throat] Because personally I don't know if Um would you would you notice the 45 the the 15t especially in one giant step or two small steps? Yeah is five feet. I mean Fred your thoughts. Um

mainly because I think we they are seeing more variances of trying to get a pool in the backyard. We need a variance. I need to go cuz the house is so [clears throat] far back. I need more space for the pool. Those variances come to us, right? No, we don't see the variances. The BCA depending on how big they are at the BCA. Individual lots will go to the BZA if it's over a certain number. How many how many are they seeing? It is it's a percentage. It's either [clears throat] five or 10% whichever is greater. So any that's why the um do they see one a month, three a month, 30 months? I'm sorry. I thought you meant how many the council sees. Um our expert on the BZA not I mean you're I mean are they sitting there saying oh my god the volume is freaking killing me. This is insane. like well I mean this year that there was a period of time where the BCA didn't meet for lack due to lack of business for four months this summer but but in reality that's a they're having a variance that says I need less than 10 feet from the back because they right now they only have to be 10 feet from the back lot and so the variances usually I think are on impervious they will I mean it is certainly a variance that does come to the BZA on occasion. I honestly couldn't tell you how many of the ones and that's why that's why I struggle with it. Yeah. So, I think it really translate more when it go items that go to the BZA translates more into the lot coverage issue because if you have 60 feet from the ride ofway of a driveway and many times it's even more. So that's a really large percentage that you have a nice big driveway all the way back to 60 feet and then all the other accutrants that

you were talking about versus if you pull it up you have that much less 15 or 20 feet square whatever the dimension is of the driveway. So I think it could lessen the possibility of lot coverage variances. So it's not so much about setback variances as it is really more the lot coverage and impervious. [clears throat] So if I can restate that if the house is 15 ft closer to the street that's a driveway that's 15 feet shorter, right? That's thus 15 by 15 [clears throat] 225 square feet less of imperous surface it's taking. question though on the 45 is 45 ft still enough if somebody wanted to get and I think the answer is yes if that somebody wanted to do a turnaround driveway you know where you pull like where you can pull in and pull out and I'm [clears throat] seeing a nod from trac from a lot of people I think so yeah in the front well that you need the width for that right it's the width more than the because it's usually only one car wide so the the nice thing is the 45 would reduce impervious which would give them room to put a pool in the back. I I totally understand just from from a homeowner's perspective, if you've got a phase one and phase two of a one street neighborhood and the the front half is at 60 and the second half is potentially 40, that's a big difference. Um that is a big difference. But back to the point on the driveway, you shorten that up to that degree. [cough and clears throat]

Still going to be able to have two cars in the uh driveway. Cars about 15 ft. You can still get six cars in there because they're usually too wide. Yeah. [laughter] back to the tie again. I think I'd have to go along with [clears throat] 50/50 with Trey of doing just the five. Let me go back to let's see where we have commonality and then we can step from there. So are we commonality okay with 50 ft or option A though we might want to improve on it but at a are we okay with A or are any of you saying no I don't feel comfortable with A. I'm comfortable with A. I'm comfortable with A. I'm not. Yeah. Because Well, I just think the the idea of point he made with the trees, but the ability to have more area in the back for the pool, the entertainment. Um I don't have a backyard. I have woods. So yeah. Well, this a does add 15 ft of woods in the back that are not in place in That's right. in in the existing. I personally I'd like it to be more, but I'm trying to say can we at least get to a Are we at least at A and then do we want to go further? I I I would be I would be for Well, we'll stick with A. [laughter] I I could I could be for B if if it was a brand new subdivision. and it was all the same and didn't create a situation where some houses were at 60 and some houses were

at 40 and that's where I was getting into the insert earlier was have mixed and that's not good. Correct. Unless there's a clear topography issue. Mhm. Trey, if would you be [clears throat] a are would you want A and then some or if are you okay if all we could get was A, you'd be you'd ra you'd at least want to have option A. But even though we'd like to see if we can come to something that's more than a either I'm coming from really two places. One is I personally prioritize um separation from neighbors. And I don't I probably don't fully understand the home valuation problem enough, but if I'm living in my home, I would prioritize and value the separation, the the buffer between me and my neighbor because that's where I live. And I would pay a premium in terms of home value, like losing a little bit of home value for the sake of having privacy while I live there. Yeah. That's why I bought a lot with a third of acres of woods at the back and a steep slope with a next to it. So, I'm going to trade home value personally, but I'm just one of four. I would trade home value for a little bit of home value for more privacy. And then second is but but if what if you were in a neighborhood that didn't apply that consistently like half the neighborhood was at the 60 foot setbacks and half the neighborhood could have been done at 40. I I don't know. I don't I don't know. Yeah. And and then the second part of my kind of

perspective on this is you have homeowners who have been here multiple multiple times out of that whole community who have a perspective. And this option C to me seems again it's lemonade out of lemons, but it's the most fair way to the vocal people to bridge the gap. Yeah. But recognize this would apply to the whole thing. Any subdivision in HG1 that is going to have a phase two or a Yeah. It It's not just Yeah. Yeah. And then I get into the next subdivision. Yeah. The next thing is, you know, we're talking about five feet. It's not make or break. I'm trying to see if we can get to the Yeah. 50. If we can get to the 50 feet, then I'd ra then let's talk about the extra five. I don't know if we're at the 50 feet yet. So, if it's if it's do nothing or 50 feet like I'm for the 50 feet. Okay. Right. I'm Okay. So, we're at least at 50 ft. Okay. 50. Anybody want And Troy wants to go five more feet. [laughter] I just want to go four and a half. But and maybe that's where a visual would help. But I I am sympathetic to 60 versus 40 versus 50 and a versus 40 in terms of frontage is a big it's difference when you live on acreage but if you live on a 1 acre one half acre lot and you've got the house next to you is this much far in front the depth that just I totally understand that it was in it was interesting because you know and there was some reference in the last meeting and I have friends that live in the gated section of white columns which was under a community unit plan and those setbacks vary from 35 ft to 50 ft and some are 60. But I know one of the things when you're developing a subdivision, you don't want everything

at the same thing. So even though your requirement is 60, the next house has to be 70 because you don't want to everything and a lot of it is topography. My topography lots, right? But I have to say the the houses that were 50 feet didn't seem oh gosh that's so close compared to the the 60 or those that were set back even further. So the 50 I don't know if I would have noticed another five. But there does come to be a point of when does it just feel like it's too close. That's right. But which is why I was kind of the there may be circumstances where it wouldn't look that close, you know, because of topography, which is kind of the discretion of the So I was leaning more discretion of the community development director if it made sense to go to 70 40 70 with the variance. Well, it wouldn't need a variance. So it would be an administrative variance call it or administrative action. But to that to that point then uh how many um guidance are we going to give them becomes a a major it's not scalable I think. Yeah. And then I do want to raise the point we're missing three commissioners and I know we have a quorum and technically we can vote on it. You can make those changes. We can do it all tonight, but we are missing three others as well. So that's this is a Y just the discussion among the four of us has led me to believe that we should probably get Well, it still has to go to city council and those so the other folks can always tell their city council person, hey, I wasn't there, but here's how I feel about it.

Because it's we're just making a recommendation. Um, well, I like your point with the with the 70, but so here's here's the thing. We could pass the buck and say we recommend option A, but we also recommend that the city council possibly also consider 4565 or an or an administrative variance to allow the city um community development director to permit option B and let them decide. pass that. [laughter] I didn't know if we I do I do, you know, I understand we have a quorum, but I do think the opinions of the other three commissioners need to be heard on this issue. But but yet I [clears throat] [snorts] I do I do want to see though that it be able to move along so it gets to city council who is the final decision maker. Did we get to 50? We're at 50. We're okay on that. We're okay on that one. We're at 50. And then the question is, how do we write in instructions on going to 40? Is that going to 45 is his recommendation. Not to go all the way to 40. Not to wait. Not to go all the way to he he's I don't know that I'm all the way comfortable with 40, but I you could maybe get me to 45. And I don't know why. [laughter] I agree. As I said, Ro, I agree to what Trey proposed. You say it one more time, Trey. What you're proposing. It's essentially splitting A and B. If

you look front 45, back 65, 30 foot pool um 25 foot undisturbed. So 45 up front and then 65 in the back. And within that 65 there's a 25 foot buffer. So it's just it's literally just splitting the difference between A and B. And what I what I don't like is anything that requires like I would prefer just to put it in not in stone, but I'd like to not create a bunch of uh gray area that has to be figured out every single time. I'm Yeah, I I'm I'm with you on that. And And I'm I'm totally just I I like 50 better than 45, but on brand new plats where it's all consistently applied to the greatest extent possible and allows for topography, but I just think if you've got this one half phase one and phase 2, I even think 45 and 60 is still that that's where I that's where I have an issue. So, if it's a brand brand new neighborhood, we're establishing the rules of the road for this this neighborhood. You've got that flexibility depending on whatever factors. That's awesome. But how many like this is back to my original question. How many of those phase one complete, phase two is yet to be built situations are there? I know. I don't I don't know. We're looking at one right now and I totally understand all the views all the way around. Yeah. Right. [clears throat] So, if we make this proposal tonight, I hear you on the other commissioners. What What would you recommend on having the other commissioners weigh in? I

mean, they're not here. So my recommendation because we are just recommenders is that they can still weigh in weigh in by contacting the person that appointed them to say here's how I feel about it or we go with phrase and city council can overrite us and go to B or go to A Okay. Yeah. But I'm kind of the I don't know if I'm ready to go as far as B. I'm Same. Okay. I'm same. So, let me try a motion. Okay. Or and I'll talk about it and then I'll formally but the idea would be is that we recommend the addition of option A but the consideration to increase option A to B 45 65 30 for 30 for the pool 25 for the tree preserve. But it's kind of like we're all in on A. we're willing to go halfway to B in certain circumstances, right? Yeah, that's right. How do we do that? Yeah. Well, you can make a recommendation with respect to option A and you can provide comment in the transmission. I don't know if you've done that in the past. Um that that's not binding. you know, it's it's not your official um recommendation, but comments that go along that in certain cir circumstances it makes sense to go yes further. Okay, let me try this. Um, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend

option A for RZ2508 to include the alternative for a 50 foot front setback, 60 foot back setback, 60oot back setback with the 15 ft tree preserve and the swimming pool being at least 20 ft feet from the rear lot. With the additional comments that the commission was open to a greater reduction in the front and addition and offsetting addition in the back under certain circumstances. But what are those circumst certain circumstances? Do we have to provide that? Now, if it's just a comment that we're not putting into the code, that's okay. The more you provide them, the more beneficial your comment may be to help them understand why you were making the comment. But because it's just a comment. Yeah. And I would say then I would say under certain circumstances to consider topography topography hydraology and surrounding neighborhood. Not only surrounding neighborhoods but consistency within multi-phase neighborhoods and and consistency within the neighborhoods. Did I get it? you did from my point of view, but I would like the um the opposing side to uh the the [laughter] opposing not opposing side, but the opposing view to second or so I personally I would just like to set them free and not have to come back

again and so I would just I would vote for option C to make it simple and be done with it. That's my preference. But um I don't understand the the how we codify something that lacks clarity. Well, my well my concern is making it citywide. You're not recommending a specific cotification of the certain circumstances. [snorts] That's something that the city council may consider or may not as as and they can go with they could still deny the change. They could go with option A. They could go with option B. They could go with an option C. They could go with a discretionary a guided discretionary option. That's all still open to them going forward. As of now, you're providing a recommendation to approve option A as presented and you're providing comments however you've decided to comments that would be from the commission itself. Yeah. That that the council needs to consider the full range. or the other options, option B in this case. I mean, I don't know how it feels like we are kicking the can to the city council. Well, we're recommending either way, right? Nothing. We're not setting something in stone. Ultimately, we're making recommendation to them either way, but does feel a little bit like kick in the can. Yep. And I just don't feel comfortable putting option B for every subdivision in AG1 going forward. But option C. Yeah. Just we're just splitting hairs, but it's really not which is back to where I was that said maybe option B or C makes sense in certain circumstances.

Yeah. Yeah. And that has to be decided when the by the ad you know to be determined those circumstances that we can that the community development director can then apply. I actually but not but not citywide. I actually appreciate the flexibility you're trying to create. Yeah. What I don't know how to do appropriately is create the confines in writing that says under these circumstances this is okay and but how do we put that in language that provides clarity so it's not a question mark or it's not completely subjective every time I mean I don't I'm not expecting you have an answer to that right now but that's what I'm struggling with and that's where I'm struggling because I know we have other things that we allow the discretion of the community development director in. Usually there's a goal or um overarching um purpose of what that um discretion would be at a minimum. We've always tried to bake that in here. I don't know what exactly they're trying to achieve because we've got competing interests. Certainly just from what I've seen this evening which what interest are they trying to achieve if we can if we can voice what interest the director is trying to accomplish um in approving and allowing an extra um reduction in the front setback and concominant increase in the rear. I'm going to withdraw my original motion since it didn't get a second. Um, and try another one. Um, I'd like to make a recommendation that we

for option to the city council and the mayor for option A to be added to the code and that option B be applied by the community development director if topography hydrarology and surrounding neighborhoods and the environment of other phases of the development. Warrant second. What do you mean by warrant? Okay, I can give me another um I could probably take a Yeah. Um it's like a promoting consistency within consistency within multi-phase. Yeah. Well, I think it was okay. It was like it it it rather than the word warrant would be beneficial to the overall aesthetic aesthetic. I will tell you I would love to have um addressed this ahead of time. Uh you have until city council has well and and I think oftenimes we'll look at um is consistent with the public health safety and welfare is the typical language that you you've heard. Okay, we'll back that off. consistent with the public health, safety and welfare of the area. In addition, in addition that that rather than that the proposal to do option B be considered

when considering those items you listed be consistent with the public health safety welfare. What he said. Okay. Is are you okay with the sec? So, I'm amending that. Are you okay with the second on that? I am. I second that. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that [laughter] we recommend approval of option A [snorts] and that option B be at the discretion of the community development director in consideration of topography, hydraology and the surrounding area and other phases of the development. Considering the public health, safety and welfare. Any further discussion? All those in favor? I I All those opposed. I'm going to oppose just because I I feel like the clarity is helpful. I agree. Okay. So that does so that motion does not pass. [laughter] Okay, we are not. All right, I'm gonna [laughter] I'm gonna make a motion that we establish option C, which is 45 ft frontage, 65 ft in the rear with a 25 ft uh undisturbed area, which would then make 20 foot pool. 30 foot pool. A 30- foot pool. I'm sure there's a more elegant way to say that, but I'll second that.

Discussion. It's been moved and seconded to recommend to city council an option C with a 45- ft front setback, a 65- ft back setback, a 25- foot I'm going to call it tree preserve, I think was the wording they wanted. on a 30foot pool set back from the rear. Any discussion? Do the other do the other not conditions with the other considerations still apply? Meaning meaning council can well no meaning the community director we we the original was we agree with a community development director has be in their arsenal considering that they take into account topo hydrarology da da da no I think this is one of those you get [clears throat] you get and they can always file for variance to go further to change this that's always true correct well they could have done that if you gave them a they could Right. Yeah. And under any circumstance you can apply for variance, which is why I would not go for C. [laughter] Yeah. because they could always I don't want to set I just don't see them I don't see somebody saying oh well if it was 50 I wouldn't apply for a variance but but because it's 45 I mean literally one giant step or two normal steps difference I don't see how that would impact the volume of variances I think the variances are going to be more sign I'm just trying to help bring these two groups together in something that minimizes confusion and lack of clarity for the staff. And I'm trying to look at it. We're we're doing something potentially citywide. Yeah. I understand your Yeah. Yeah. That's that's my

If someone on Wood Road wanted to put 45 foot setbacks, would you feel comfortable with that? Not on wood, I'm sorry. On um Doris, because that's what we're talking about. They could do this on Doris. Yeah. Mhm. I mean, it's just hard to say. I again, I I value privacy for where I spend most of my time, which is behind the house, right? Okay. It's it's why I mean, if we were all completely aligned, it probably wouldn't be great for the community. So, this is not negative. Correct. It just is. Just is. And I have to say I'd rather I'm kind of with them that said I'd rather see more in the back than the my wa my front yard is a waste. [laughter] Well, I'm looking at it and the fact I wish I had more in the back and less in the front. That's fine. Okay. So, if I was building [clears throat] under that circumstance. So, it's been moved and seconded to recommend an option C with a 45 foot front setback and a a 65 foot back setback, 30 foot setback for from the rear for the pool and a 25 foot tree preserve. All those in favor? I opposed. Opposed. Okay. So the vote is 3 to one with Commissioner MC and the um negative. Okay. Is that was that um okay we're calling the next item. Should I have also uh So that was text amendments to

[clears throat] do. Are we okay with how I did that? Yeah, I didn't have to say text amendments to 3.1.4 building placement. We're good. Okay. Okay. Uh, next item to consider is RZ 259 text amendment to section 9.2.5E 2.5E to create sign standards for the Arnold Mill Road Hamlet Overlay District. I would like to call zoning manager Robin McDonald to present the staff report for this item. Good evening. Uh, Madame Chair and planning commissioners, just to refresh what has occurred in this area, here is a map that shows the geographical area that the Arnold Mill Road Hamlet Overlay District includes and where this um proposed sign ordinance covers. During the process of creating this new overlay district, the planning commission asked that an assessment be made regarding the current sign regulations for the rural Milton overlay district and if it would they would a and if it would achieve the vision for the master plan that was worked on. It was determined that the Birmingham Crossroads sign ordinance was the preferred ordinance because the Royal Milton Overlay sign ordinance only had size standards. But the Birmingham crossroads included structure and face material requirements. So that's what this uh exhibit shows. On the left is the Rural Milton overlay standards and on the right was the Birmingham crossroads and it's much more detailed about the requirements. The purpose of this text amendment is uh providing specific sign standards for the newly adopted Arnold Mill Road Hamlet Overlay District. Um these

requirements or the ordinance will be located within article 9 site development, signs and within the sign ordinance there's a section for overlays and formbbased codes section. And so this would be added to uh a subsection of the overlays. As previously stated, the Birmingham Crossroads sign regulations were recommended for the new overlay district. This uh proposed sign ordinance, it mirrors that of the Birmingham Crossroads overlay district except for the section on the next slide. The allowance for one internally illuminated door sign is proposed. It is staff's opinion and experience that there is a need for this type of sign for the local businesses to be able to indicate if their business is open. Staff is addressing this issue to encourage the visibility of businesses within the newly created overlay similar to the development and traffic patterns of Crab Apple and Deerfield formbbased codes. This type of illuminated sign is permitted again in Crab Apple and Deerfield. So, this says uh notwithstanding the prohibitions contained in section 9.2.5. E5 and we can go over that. I have another slide, but it's just all the exclusions uh that can't be done. Uh a business is allowed one internally illuminated door sign containing LED or neon tubing. The sign shall not exceed three square feet in size and may not blink, flash, fluctuate, or be animated in any way. Uh there was one comment question regarding internally illuminated window signs at the CZIM in October. And then this is the full um text. So it's basically all new. Um and if you want to go page by page, we can do that.

Or um if you have any other comments, we can u address them. Yeah. Since [clears throat] I wasn't in favor of the overlay Hamlet, um what happens to the areas that are not in the Hamlet overlay district? So, they would default to um the rural Milton overlay. So, uh, we go back to this exhibit to show that it's basically these two nodes, the one at Cox and Arnold Mill, and then the further north at Chadwick uh, road and north to the, uh, county line to the Little River. So, anything in between uh, would default back to uh, the Rural Milton overlay sign ordinance. So, well, I hate to complicate it, but what are the differences or what would be the differences? So, the differences are outlined here in this where on the left is rural Milton um and on the right is um Birmingham Crossroads. So that's what we're proposing to adopt in in general except for the little flashing uh not non flashing I'm sorry illuminated three square foot sign. So on the left um you know it's maximum 32 foot sign for let's say a church or a private school. Um, and let's see, for the crossroads, a freestanding single tenant is 20 square foot. So, that would, you know, if you had um that type of sign, so it's a little bit smaller. Um, and then for the

freestanding C1, uh, again in the rural Milton, it's a larger sign than what would be allowed in Birmingham Crossroads. A freestanding multi-tenant, I'm sorry, is 32 square feet. It's the same thing. And the single tenant is uh 20 square feet. And I don't have the single tenant for the C1 on the left. I'd have to look it up. the the intent was that there's a lot more uh regulation and requirements for the look and the color uh the type of uh construction of the actual sign not just the height and square footage. So you would you s u say there would be any other opportunity of someone outside of the hamlet um going back to the rural Milton overlay rather than Birmingham. Well, the rural if it's outside of these two nodes here, the northern and the southern, everything in between or in general, you know, along the corridor, they would be required to do the rural Milton overlay and they would not be able to do a lighted indoor a lighted door sign. Yeah. which there is a little bit of C1 on the opposite on the west side kind of across from Chadwick, but there is there's really no commercial between those two nodes. It's all residential other than being maybe if a church comes in or a private school, you know, they would have their allowance for their signage.

Okay. Remind me the setbacks are quite extensive in that Chadwick node right from Arnold Mill it's like 100 ft or something like that correct yes and we're going to have a little discussion about that later but yes now I will say that the development that's already been nonresidential um does not require that it's only the AG1 that has the larger of the um setback. So the new gas station and different buildings that are being built or have been built that is not that doesn't have that view shed. Okay. I was just thinking the lighted sign to be able to be seen from Arnold Mill to say we're open. Right. But it's kind of apples and oranges. Yeah. Okay. But I would Yeah. say that we're kind of comparing it that it's a little bit different character than Birmingham Crossroads because it's a much slower, you know, up at Birmingham Crossroads versus if you're in normal traffic pattern going by um you know, you're you're further away from a building typically than you are at Birmingham Crossroads. So, yeah. I think [clears throat] different from what I was saying earlier to the sign part um in there in Birmingham. You cannot see through to the is it advertising on the inside. Here was my problem way back then. Is that if you have or had a drugstore with

big windows, the side view looking in would have on the walls signs [clears throat] and then this they would not be allowed. And that's very typical today. And I guess it goes back two ways. You could say not the signs, but the lettering saying shampoos, um, deodorants and all that you can see from the parking lot and all that. So if that constitutes signing, uh [cough] that's a problem I have. So there is a section um in F right here that talks about the wall signs that single tenant buildings and end units of multi-tenant buildings are allowed one additional wall sign. Businesses whose primary entrance faces an interior parking lot or courtyard are allowed one additional wall sign. The MACM size of each of these signs must not exceed 3%. So that allows for an extra wall sign for interior buildings. Okay. But does [clears throat] again looking at the store if they have a sidewall with a valance with advertising on it or is that or saying as I did shampoos and all this is that considered signed? So if they have basically the

if you put a drugstore on Arnold Mill as a CBS or a Walgreens, you're looking into that, you will see the wall sections with telling you what's in that on the inside of the building. You're saying inside the building, right? But you can see. So that's not considered a sign. That's what I was guing to get to and it's fine. I don't have a problem with Okay. Um, does the commission have any questions for staff? I think I had my share. Any further? Um, do we have any public comments? We do [laughter] not. We do not. Um so I will um I don't have to announce all this if we don't have [clears throat] any public comment. I don't think so. We can just conclude public comment. Um does the commission have any questions for the staff on this? None for me. For me. Um, and I I know in Birmingham Highway we don't allow the the lighting, but I think to me Arnold Mill is a being there along Arnold Mill Road, which is a major traffic having the idea that they could have a sign that says open and closed. And I agree for people to come on. You know, up in Birmingham Crossroads, everything faces the center. people kind of know when people are open and stuff like that. So, it's a little different layout, right? It's a different uh land. It's a

different development pattern than what you have on more of a So, you know, that being the change, but you know, the look and feel of the sign each um I know one of the concerns from some of the businesses up there since there are a lot of small places there is there's not enough ability to advertise, right? um up there, but this does allow them to put wall signs up. So, that would help as well. What you're saying in there is the um allowance for the open closed sign. Yeah, the lighted open close sign. Yeah, because they added this one. That's okay. I agree. Um we didn't make any changes. I see the one change from Birmingham is what's in front of you here about the lighted sign, right? Okay. Personally, I'm not a fan of neon, but that's public preference. Um, so, uh, any other questions? I will now close the public hearing hearing. Can I get a motion regarding RZ 25009? I would like to make a motion to recommend acceptance of RZ2509 text amendment to section 925E to create sign standards for the Arnold Mill Road Hamlet Overlay District as proposed. Second. Okay. Any further discussion? I have a motion from Commissioner McKis and a second from Commissioner Edwards um to recommend approval. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Okay. The next item to consider is RC 2510 text amendment to the Arnold Mill Road Hamlet overlay section 6.5.3

to modify AG1 standards to the unified development code for the city of Milton. Uh if Miss Robin McDonald, zoning manager, would present the staff report for RC 2510. Thank you. Um Madame Chair and commissioners, again, uh we're at this again, this is the map that shows the area of the Arnold Mill Road Hamlet Overlay District that is the subject of this text amendment. And here uh we have um the proposed changes. Every obviously everything in black already exists in this uh text. So I'm just going to go over what's changed and then I'm going to graphically and explain each. There's kind of three parts to this. Um, so it's it currently says 100 foot minimum to 120 foot maximum for in regards to lot width. That's what it said originally. We're adding anything in red. A maximum for residential lots with a front or rear property line adjacent to Arnold Mill. So that's [clears throat] 0.1. Okay. Then we have a semicolon. Then the next point is 200 ft minimum and 20 to 220 ft maximum for residential lots with a side property line adjacent to Arnold Mill Road where the first 100 ft being the required Arnold Mill Road rural view shed. That's a lot but just you know stay with me. So point number three is 150 foot minimum for all other residential non-culac lots within the Arnold Mill Hamlet overlay and not adjacent to Arnold Mill Road. Okay. So just I have this in the front and then after all our little uh exhibits I'm going to have it back in front of you so

it makes sense. So the purpose is to establish different lot width standards based on a parcel's adjacency to Arnold Mill Road in accordance with the 100 foot rural viewshed requirements of the overlay. Okay. Um as you can see uh in this exhibit and this is a snippet from the uh plan that was presented to you all and to the city council uh for the overall plan. So here we have um the lots that this says 200, but the minimum is really 100. But the idea is that hey, I guess if you have this size lot, you could possibly have 200 feet of of of undisturbed area. But reality is front yard require one front yard. I'm sorry. Front yard. Well, the front I mean it's like a double frontage because you got the lot here. You got the the road here and the road here. So it's called a double frontage. So yes. So here um what we are saying is in point one let's go back to that is that I need it. Point one is that we have 100 to 120 foot maximum lot width for front and rear property lines adjacent to Arnold Mill. So that that would apply to these. Okay, so they're between 100 and 120 square ft. I mean, not square feet, linear feet in width. Okay, [clears throat] and remember that in this area you can have smaller side setbacks and a smaller front setback. Okay, now um number two would be lots that are adjacent to Arnold Mill Road are proposed to have modified lot.

That's what I just said. Sorry. Illustrated to the right is a proposed new requirement for lots with a side property line here. This lot that's beige with the green uh buffer. a side property line adjacent to Arnold Mill Road to provide a lot width between 200 and 220 ft with the first 100 ft serving as the required Arnold Mill Road rural view shed. So this had not been in the original verbiage. Okay. So when we were kind of looking at [clears throat] potential developments, this issue came up. Okay. Um, and then the other one is lots with a front or rear property line adjacent. Again, this is the normal 100 to 120 foot width. You can see this right here. Um, this is the normal uh lot that we talked about earlier. Now for number three, the third point, all other lots within the overlay that are not adjacent to Arnold Mill Road will have a minimum lot width of 150 ft consistent with the development standards of the AG1. So we wanted to make sure that the remainder of the lots in this overlay district was consistent with other rural lots that we have in the city. and that would require 150 foot lot width versus 100 to 120. Okay, so that is a change or not a change but it's an addition. Okay, so again we'll [clears throat] walk through this.

Originally it just said 100 foot minimum to 120 foot maximum everything in AG1 in in that node in that area. So this includes not just at Cox and Arnold Mill but it also includes anything AG1 to [clears throat] the north by Chadwick's north of Chadwick or and there's a little bit south of Chadwick landfill. Okay. So we have the 100 to 120 ft and then the second point is a 200 foot minimum 2 to 220 for residential lots with a side property line adjacent to Arnold Mill. And then the third point being the 150 foot minimum for all other residential non-culsac lots interior to Arnold Mill. Okay, so that's basically what we have. And if you still don't understand it, don't worry. it. That picture was great. Yeah, I'm here. We're here to answer your questions or help clarify it. Does anybody have any questions for staff? This keep this picture up, please, because this is good. This one? Yeah. Okay. [laughter] I think it [clears throat] makes sense. You're talking about the 100 foot rural viewshed and um does it then have the same, you know, standards of the rural view shed and it has to be planted with natural plantings and all that sort of thing. If they don't, it's just a regular view. [clears throat] So it's so the regular rural viewshed requirements will continue to apply and everything else is trying to allow for that rural viewshed

and make adjustments for those but everything internals is like any place else in AG1. Okay. Correct. And we're just kind of um for the first arrow on the north side just contemplating if you had a lot coming in with a side property line, you wouldn't have anything left to develop on if you just made it 100 to 120 ft. So what why why are we stipulating the upper boundary of [clears throat] 220 ft? If that first lot were the the top blue arrow, could it could it be 400 feet? I'm sorry, I don't understand. What? Say that again. It says your second your second bullet there says um the requirement for lots with a side property line adjacent to Arnold Mill Road to provide a lot width between 200 and 220 ft. Why is there a 200? Why is there an upper limit the 220? Why is there a maximum? Why can't I have a lot width of a,000 feet if if my property if I own all of that and I want to have one house on what here would be 10 lots? [cough] I mean I answer that. It's to create that Hamlet character, those narrow lots, uh, with the appearance that these homes are, you know, closer together and further up front. It's that Hamlet style development that this is trying to promote and add the rural viewshed 100 ft to it. So, if this is enforced, if it's put in in motion, and I go buy lots one through five and put one house on it, am I prohibited from doing that, or do I have to put five houses?

Each lot has a maximum width. There's a minimum, but there's also a maximum in order to try to promote that style of development. So if you had a house on a 400 frontage, 400 foot lot, it it's totally out of character with that Hamlet style that is being promoted just in this one area. So the gray area is also included in the hamlet. Is that right? Yeah. But that's just the 150 lot width. So that's the differentiation between but this is private property the dimensions of the lots the gray area yes this is all part of what I want to do the hamlet area but the gray is the traditional 150 foot max I mean minimum lot width [clears throat] so I'm just trying to understand I don't even know that I'm pushing back um just seeking clarity someone owns this piece of property today, like an individual, if that individual sells it to me, and let's just say this whole thing is 20 acres. If they sell this 20 acres to me, do I have to develop it to con to conform with the hamlet or can I just put a house on it? No, you you would be able to put a house on it. It's a at worst a non-conforming lot. It it would be only if it's developed that it has to follow the hamlet. Only if it's subdivided or subdivided. That's what I mean. Yeah. Yeah. Only if it's subdivided the Hamlet rules apply then for creating new lots because this would be a legal non-conforming lot.

Reason I ask is I've been involved with a group that's been trying to buy this piece of property and this is not how they would build on it at all. I'm not I'm not involved in it now. I think I recused myself on the last time, but I'm just curious. I know that one of the guys who owns the property doesn't like I don't think I think this will limit his ability to sell. So, that's a whole Hamlet conversation though. I don't know [snorts] that we need to get into that. I that helps me understand if it's developed it has lots. Yeah. Then it has to fit the Hamlet standard. But once you get to the gray area, to be honest, that's just the traditional AG1 zoning district. So you could technically have larger lots, okay, in the interior, but like what Diana said along Arnold Mill, there's a certain look that we want to see. And yeah, I agree with that. I like that. I'm kind of with Trey, though, because so many are, oh, it has to be a minimum of 150 ft. We never put an outer boundary on it, right? And this has an outer boundary. And that's what threw me a little bit too when I first looked at it. Like I'm just used to a minimum boundary, not a maximum boundary. Yeah. But it's because of the the development pattern that we want along Arnold Mill. So just more understanding, if I bought right there, it looks like lot four and lot five. So they're not touching Arnold Mill. They're on the interior. Could I not buy both lots and put one house on that? Correct. I mean, if Yeah. If you wanted to do the combination plat, let's say if a developer came in, we have that happen very frequently. The city per permits that, right? I mean, you would just get a a combination for those two lots and it would be in compliance because it's a minimum 150 foot width and it's more

than one acre in the gray area. Yeah. [clears throat] Got it. Well, oh, so those those those would just be the minimum t typical AGO on a minimum of 150. It's lots one, two, and three that have a maximum width, right? We're really just I think we're just trying to protect the 100 foot undisturbed buffer regardless of what gets built behind it. We would prefer that it we want this to be a Hamlet style development, but So the real question would be property owner can do whatever they want with it but we do want to protect that 100 foot undisturbed buffer. Yeah. But to say it say Trey question another way. If he [clears throat] wanted to buy lots one and two in that case he he cannot put one house in the middle. He could put a house on two and leave one vacant but he can't put a house he can't combine those lots. weird. [laughter] Maybe you just need to look somewhere else in the city. Okay, that was just an example. No, I I just Yeah. [snorts] Okay. Any other further questions for staff? Do we have any comments from the public? Okay. Unless they're invisible. Yes. Um I will then conclude public comment since we had none. Any further questions for staff.

So, we're really just putting maximum restrictions on on lot width on lots two and three on the max the maximum there really is technically already the correct um dimensions or regulations already are in place for one and two. But the second bullet point is lot number three when we contemplated that it have a side property line and therefore it couldn't be wide enough to get a house on it. And then the third point is um to allow to have the 150 foot minimum for interior lots. So one and two is already good. It's already there. Oh okay. were fixing a contemplating a lot number three. And then currently the way that the ordinance read was that all interior lots still only they were 100 to 120 foot wide versus what we want is 150 ft wide for interior lots. Does that make sense? Yeah. Let me ask this question another way. Lot three. Could it be 225 ft wide? Because maybe four, five, and six become two lots instead of three. Well, to the earlier point, right now it's written as a maximum of 220. So, it couldn't be 230 unless you got a variance. If you or if we said strike the strike the max, just make the minimum 200. Yeah. on property line adjacent Arnold Mill Road to provide a lot with no less than 200 ft. I don't Yeah, I'm kind of like I didn't understand though why the max I can

if one and if one and two are already established, but if I bought one and two and wanted to combine them, but is that back to the whole Hamlet feel? I'm just I I guess I'm not here. We are encouraging larger lots but yet then setting a maximum lot width. Yeah. [laughter] Yeah. I think the intention was to be able to still keep the one acre, have a minimum one acre, be able to have room for your septic because you can't put the septic in the rural viewshed. Yeah. And I'm okay with the requirements on the viewshed and the minimum of 200. Right. You're just saying not the max of 220. I don't understand why we have to say the max of 220 and the max of 120. Well, I think it goes back to Diana's point about having a certain uh development pattern for this hamlet area along Arnold Mill. Along Arnold Mill. So, okay. I kind of get your idea with the 200 with a side property line because you're not going to see beyond it. But at the same time, if you had a developer come, they're probably going to limit the size, whatever the minimum regulations to get everything in to be able to do another lot, not just make a really big wide lot. But again, we don't know that. Okay. Um, any further questions? Just on on your map, um, up in the top left corner, which is out of that that parcel is out of the hamlet. What is it? It is out of the hamlet. Yes.

It's not part of it. Okay. So, do we know what's there? I mean, I'm asking I mean I to be honest, I don't know what's there. Okay. But they wouldn't be required if that's if it's from there to wherever. They're not under any Right. They're not required. Right. No, it I think it looks like it's a fairly small lot. I think it's just an acre lot. It's a fairly rectangular lot. So, I can't imagine anything happened with it unless it was combined with something to the north. So, yeah. I just don't know what physically is on it. I don't either. Yeah. It's just a house with a acre. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I will now close the public hearing. Um, can we get a motion regarding RZ25-10? I'll try. I move we accept R Z25-10 tax amendment to Arnold Mill Road Hamlet Overlay. Are you moving that we accept or moving? We recommend We recommend. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry. I have a second. I I think I want to be silent on this one. I don't know how to do that. Can I just abstain from an answer only because I may this may come back around for me. He can't he can he can vote neither for or against. Right. Well, we if we have three four then he doesn't have to vote, right? A two to one vote is a passing um would would approve a motion. two to one with one abstaining. Yes.

Okay. I I haven't looked to see if there's a provision which requires you to vote. But if it's three to three to three, as long as there is a majority of those casting votes, but two to one would be because he's not recusing. He's going to Let me make sure the language that's typical language. [clears throat] While he looks at on that, we still need a second. You're I think I'm back in the discussion phase. You're back in the discussion. I'm back in the discussion. I I I understand what the city or what the development folks are want to do here hamlet style. I love it. I also understand that if someone buys that, they might have a completely different vision. And how much how much of what we we accept tonight or propose recommendation that the council accept is going to prohibit or make difficult for someone to come in and do something different. So I I can make a comment that we're not So we actually did have a developer look at this piece of property and it's exactly for the reason of this developer that we're coming back to you. Now it's kind of fallen through. It's not. Okay. So, this is a realworld situation of a real developer saying this is the way I need to develop it. Got it. Okay. So, I like I like the Hamlet concept and I like the idea of regardless of what's put there protecting Arnold Arnold Mill and having the Yeah, like that. Um, you do you have the same problems I have with the maximum lot? Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I'll just chime in. You do actually need to have three votes in favor of your motion. It does say majority of those present.

Okay. Did I get a second? We do not have a second yet. Okay. We were having discussion on the second. So, so would if we struck the lot width requirements. Is that I think the max what you guys are kind of discussing is just to ex to recommend approval of this text amendment but with one amendment being to strike the maximum 220 for the side property line or the 122 I yeah the maximum okay [cough and clears throat] you do not have a second okay okay so that motion fails for a second I can I ask another question real fast So the developer that was looking at this, is is this structure, the Hamlet structure advantageous to them? Does it help them? He was he loved it. Okay. But I like the I mean aesthetic and I mean obviously he's just one in you know however many developers are out there but um no I mean he he was very receptive to working with us and coming up with the best plan that worked um and still kept in compliance as much as possible with the hamlet and the overall uh [clears throat] plan that was approved by the council. I go back to see that what was it was brought to you all was that overall plan which was this development pattern and it was explained at the time that this is the development pattern to have narrower lots with deep deep lots so that we can have this um this buffer but also to be able to be um developable um with one acre minimum. I mean obviously it could be a little bit more than an acre but that [clears throat] is the development pattern that was

established through the plan and then ultimately through the ordinance that was passed by the council. Um ju just professionally opinion I get your point about the maximum on the side property line because you're not going to see it and okay what's what's another 20 ft or whatever because again I go back to that point that I'm not sure a developer is just going to waste all this property just because oh I just feel like having a wider lot but for like lots one and two you know it's not to have a maximum it's just going to be another AG1 lot and it's going to go against the plan that was approved 6 8 months ago by the city council if we get rid of the maximum on um two and three the front and rear that's just our profess I mean obviously you can make your recommendation it's just if kind of heed just go slowly about that whole idea of getting rid of the maximum on the 100 to 120. Yeah. Because the idea would be if you combined lots one and two but and by what [clears throat] you if you got rid of the 120 foot maximum because we have to have a 100 foot minimum. The only way to achieve that would be to combine the two which would give you an almost 3 acre lot which is not the idea for there. or you know what if somebody said hey I want a threeacre lot because we'll have a horse farm or it's a variance at this point a community or unless we take away the maximum you know maybe they want to develop that to be kind of a recreation center super a super hamlet a super a super hamlet super hamlet everybody can put their horses max everyone defines hamlet differently that's right

um [clears throat] mine was more the I understand the intent pent in this development for the the hamlet idea, but I [clears throat] also understand somebody buys the property, how much do we want to tie their hands? That's right. Well stated. Oh, still waiting for a motion. You want me to give? So, just for for clarity, the hamlet's been approved. So, as this stands right now, what? So, the change we're making is So, what the change? It's only for Arnold Mill. I'm sorry, what? It's only for the Arnold Mill protection. Well, it's for this node as well as the one to the north if it gets developed uh with lots. Um, so currently, so really the only change that you're making is, so lots one and two already exist with the existing verbiage. Okay. And then the point number two is the lot number three with the wider width with the side property line. And then the point number three is all the gray to allow um more consistency interior to be with our normal AG1 development pattern of 150 lot width. We're not ad we're not we're not deciding on the Hamlet configuration at this point. We're just it's just that first lot. Number three or number one and number three. It's primarily number three right here. is number three and then allowing the development pattern in the gray area to be four, five, and wider lots because you're not So again, this was a real world situation. We're not showing the rest basically on the remainder of the property when the developer did the

shotgun 120s in the middle of AG1, it just did not produce the kind of development that we believed was the best for the area. So that's why point number three is included for the interior lots. So really well I mean what was on the table was just really lots number three and then the gray lots. Okay. Lots number one and two we weren't proposing to change. Obviously, it's open, but um that's not what the staff's recommendation was. So, just for clarification, the 100 foot minimum, 122 foot maximum, [clears throat] it is already in place for lots and correct. So, that's like already code, right? that. So that so really the only thing in question then would be the do we want to add the 220 for lot three or just say it has to be at least 200. Okay, I already make a motion. [laughter] Please. Um, I would like to make a motion to recommend approval of RZ2510 with the exception to strike the 220t maximum for residential lots with a side property line adjacent to Arnold Mill and just and just keep the 200 foot minimum. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? I I That's I'm sorry you guys were really quiet. Who seconded it? I was gonna ask the same thing, Brian.

I second it. Yes, I It's been moved by Commissioner Birds and seconded by Commissioner Mcnes. Um, and then we had three yays and three yays and one abstension. That motion passes. Great. Sorry. Thank you. Okay. [clears throat] You said that all of this only pertains to this hamlet. Is that correct? So, let me go back to the So, this only pertain So, this this is the whole corridor on the left here. Road's touching. I mean, only Okay. And then if you look at I think it's on your monitor. Is it on your monitor? No. No. We're on our monitor. I'm with you. Okay. Go ahead. [clears throat] Okay. Now it's coming. Okay. So, it only pertains to the red. The areas of red. That's it. Okay. And only to be honest, there's only so many lots that are along Arnold Mill that aren't developed because you have Ebenezer Church on the left. You've got the cemetery on the left to the south. I mean, there's just not a lot left over. So, are there three hamlets or two? There's just two. Two, right? The one to the north, the Chadwick node, right? Okay. Just two. And then the Cox Road node. Yeah. Yep. Okay. The next item to consider is RZ211 text amendment to section 8.2 use tables and to create section 8.8.20 20 is a new section for accessory food trucks and limited situations to the unified development code for the city of Milton, Georgia. Diana Wheeler is going to present staff's report for RZ 2511.

That's not it at all. This next item is a uh an amendment proposed to allow accessory food trucks. Um, the reason that we are proposing this is because we see this as an opportunity to accommodate a new business that came to us and talked about the possibility of having a food truck and to promote economic development, especially in Crab Apple where quick breakfast and lunch options for workers are very limited. So, we had a business owner come to us and say that they wanted to have a food truck that is basically a coffee truck to be parked in the lot of a restaurant that only serves lunch and dinner, which would create sort of a symbiotic relationship that works for both of them. But in Milton, food trucks are only allowed for special events. And I think that possibly the reason for that is because oftentimes food trucks are seen as competitors to brickandmortar restaurants with maybe an unfair competitive advantage because they don't have to pay for uh a restaurant building. But in this case, there may be an opportunity if structured correctly to accommodate food trucks where they actually would be beneficial to restaurants where they can work in tandem as opposed to being competitors. Uh [snorts] and so what we're proposing to do is to add food trucks as an accessory use. And how we would define it as an accessory food truck is a self-contained mobile restaurant without seating located on

the same property with an active restaurant that has a current occupation tax certificate. So, this food truck would be allowed as an accessory use on any property that already includes an active restaurant um operating within a permanent structure. So, the intent here is that that active restaurant would be agreeable to having the food truck there. So, they would not be competitors. It would be with permission. Um no additional parking would be required. They have to be located anywhere. They could be located anywhere in the property except in front of the main building unless they had permission. They could not block visibility or access. They had to be within 50 ft of a residential dwelling. All sorts of licensing would be required just as you would with any food truck or restaurant. The signage would be limited to one sandwich board sign and the hours of operation would be between 7:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. So that was the idea to open the door to food trucks if they would be beneficial in a very limited capacity with permission from adjoining restaurant owners. and the person that approached us about doing this would qualify under all of this uh requirements with all the scenario that I've just laid out. So, something to think about. We thought we would bring to your attention and see if maybe something you might want to entertain. Questions? Um, Alpharetta has food truck Thursday thirsties. Are all of those attached to restaurants? No, their regulations are completely different. They just allow food trucks.

And Milton does not, only in special events. So, this would be an opportunity to allow food trucks in a very limited capacity under certain circumstances. Correct. Um, and then, you know, it's possible that over time they might be embraced and the community might want them and restaurants might feel that they were acceptable and so you could look at something further in the future if it worked out that way. No, I think it's good control. So, I love the idea of having food trucks. I mean, I think it just creates walkability and people want to be outside. So, if you have a sponsor restaurant that says, "Yes, I want to sponsor this food truck to be, you know, adjacent to my restaurant." Let's say the sponsor restaurant serves sandwiches and they want a coffee food truck out front. What happens if the restaurant next to the sandwich shop sells coffee? That's their choice. So, does the does the sponsor trump their neighbors? So now you're introducing com competition with the neighboring restaurant. I just don't know how that should be worked out between them if they don't have a [clears throat] problem with it. And it might be just that for example if you have a strip shopping center and then you have let's say um a restaurant that serves hamburgers and a food truck that wants to serve pizza and their menus don't compete. But perhaps the uh restaurant that serves hamburgers thinks that it would be great to bring more folks in. Maybe there if there's a long line for pizza, they'll stop in for a hamburger. There there are opportunities, you know, for shared benefits. That place down in downtown Alpharetta that does something similar. Trap and uh tap and truck and yeah, can you go back to 3A?

So, this one was one of those that it can be located anywhere. It can be in front of the primary building except with the permission granted, but isn't the business located immediately behind it, the person that's operating the food truck? So, I was confused by that one because it's like it can be located there except the permission has to be from that business. Well, that is that business's food truck. So, I was confused by that. All right. So, if the pime the primary business is the bricks and mortar building, the restaurant, and it's possible that the food truck would want to locate in their parking lot, right? And that's fine. That's not in front. But it's also possible that they might be a restaurant that has a parking lot in front. So, you can't block the view of the restaurant with a food truck unless the restaurant says it's okay for the food truck. A couple of examples along Highway Nine, for example. Well, I'm even thinking like the Union. The Union could have isn't open for breakfast, could have a coffee truck next to in the parking lot or Bloom that is open for breakfast and lunch could have a pizza food truck in the evening. Sure. On that. Y um so I'm going to go to Birmingham Crossroads where we have one restaurant, the pizza place. Well, and the subway in the [clears throat] Chinese place. So, one of the thing, you know, so they could put a coffee truck out front, except the Birmingham Crossroads has said we don't want drive-thru coffee shops. No drive-thru is allowed. I'm I'm because we have a lot of restrictions regarding drive-thru, and I could see these food trucks being set up as drive-through coffee places. Well, we'd have to look at how they were

situated. You know, we talk about the fact that they can't take up more than three parking spaces. They can't block access and circulation. So, obviously, if you've got a drive-thru with a food uh a food truck and for people to drive up to it, they're blocking the drive aisle into the shopping center. That's a problem and we wouldn't permit that. They'd have to be located in a way that they don't obstruct circulation on site for all the other businesses. Yeah, believe me, at 7 o'clock in the morning, Birmingham crossroads, there is no tra there there wouldn't be any blockage because there's no traffic. You know, the Publix is open. So, um, and then for example, Scottdale Farm, Scottdale Farms has a restaurant. Could they have a food truck even though it's kind of a restricted restaurant? Well, with with permission permission from Scottsdale Farms. Well, be an airport. Well, but Scottsdale Farms would say, "I want to put a food truck out there." They could, right? I mean, in this scenario, or they could let a friend who has a food truck. Yeah. It doesn't have to be a a separate entity. It could be the restaurant itself. Yeah. That has that. So, question. Do we define what a food truck is? Because I don't know if I I I should I I should plead the fifth on this because I have been at a location where someone pulls up with their with their car, opens their trunk, and you're buying food out of the back. Is that a food [clears throat] truck? No. A food truck, as we define it, is a self-contained mobile restaurant. doesn't have seating and it has all of its licensing from the health department, from the city, from every

place that requires a food truck to get certifications um and licensing. This [clears throat] would have to have it. Yeah. So, we might want to have um because this would say the food truck, the restaurant has to have a Oh, there it is. a license an operator of an ex record city business alcohol license health department approval and okay so it can't be just somebody pulling up their truck so I I developed a 12 truck food lot food truck park in Bosezeman Montana two years ago and one of the one of the requirements in Bosezeman is that the food truck has an axle And that prevents, you know, the sea contain, the sealand containers that people buy, it prevents somebody from dumping a sealand container, [clears throat] which would be more permanent. Um, honestly, for my sake as a developer, my preference would be to put sealand containers that I could rent out to food truck companies, but it makes it permanent. But we're not talking about permanent. We're not talking about containers. We're talking about we use the word mobile restaurant. It has to be mobile. It has to have the ability to leave. Yeah. Okay. I think Boseman's definition. I like the idea. I'm just I'm I like the idea. I'm just watching for the exception, unexpected consequences. I like the idea, too. I really do. Yeah. But I say you're going to have a food truck in the Birmingham crossroads. serving coffee to 10 o'clock at night potentially. Great.

Is there any reason is there any reason to put different time [clears throat] like open time business time requirements on them than would be on any standard business? And well, you know, if you have a restaurant with an alcohol license, they may be open much later in the evening. This [clears throat] is not a scenario we want people to necessarily congregate at midnight around a food truck. Okay. We don't want a mobile bar. In other words, yeah. Well, yeah. Yeah. [clears throat] I like the idea for sure. Okay. I like that this is limited to [clears throat] properties that are already a restaurant, right? And it's limited to where there's an agreement between that restaurant and the food truck. So there's a lot of things I like that I'm just trying to like you think through the what are the loopholes or what are the the the things that caused us grief in Bosezeman was noise abatement [clears throat] because inev inevitably they're running a you know some kind of a generator and then um there's got to be some kind of standard for grease trap like there's got to be some something that says where they dump their they dispose of their waste, water, and also grease. Wouldn't that be covered in their license they get with the I don't know food. Yeah, those are just the county or whatever to operate as a food truck. Probably the biggest frustration for people around us that they experienced was uh we put power in and so we did that to keep the generator noise down for all the neighbors.

So that might be. And now there's solar powered generators that don't make noise, right? But I do love the idea. I mean, I think it attracts it's it's neat. As long as it's not a junky food truck, what are you thinking? He's ready to get you ready for you ready for a motion or ready for a motion? Yeah. The only other thing too is that because he brings up a good point of, you know, I have an out I have a restaurant with outdoor seating and the restaurant next door puts a food truck out there that's burning that's running a gener a noisy generator with fumes. Do we do we need to put any guidelines around noise or emissions? The the the problems are noise and then trash. I mean, you don't want them having trash leaving, you know, that's the coyotes [clears throat] are going to get into and birds and all that kind of stuff and me making a mess there. And then um the 10 o'clock is probably great for keeping the the generator off and all that kind of thing. But um yeah, trash, water or waste and then sound. So maybe consideration that they they provide adequate um adequate disposal of waste and trash. Yeah. And for us, we ended up putting we ended up buying picnic tables and and putting them there as to attract food trucks. But we certainly have had situations where food trucks have bought like they brought a tent and put it out because they needed more space than there. We're like, "No, you can't." So, it just it

does open Pandora's box a little bit, but um again, I'm very much in favor of giving it a shot. Yeah. But just rec, you know, recognize it may not be your traditional restaurants. It could be a golf and country club that says, "I'm going to put a food truck now by the tennis courts, right? You know, I have a kitchen over here and I'm going to I'm going to put a truck." I like it there. Well, I [clears throat] had a concern until I reread this at least for two times that I put question marks on it. Now I find that it was covered because the city has sponsored events with food trucks in the past. Yes. At outdoor events, right? But it's only been allowed at city sponsored events. Yes. [clears throat] I'd like to make a motion that we approve or recommend recommend what's the term recommend approval for RZ25-11 text amendment to section 8.2 use tables. What am I doing? Just a second. Give me um that concludes public comment. Now we can take a motion. [laughter] Can I just say I recommend I make a motion to recommend RZ approval of RZ25-11 as proposed. As proposed. Second. It's been moved by Commissioner James and seconded by Commissioner Mcnes to recommend approval of RC 2511. Any more discussion? All those in favor? I. Any approved or any opposed? None. Any approved? No. It's getting [laughter] late. It is getting late. Um,

okay. So, next up, we have no changes to the comprehensive plan for the city of Milton or other plans tonight to consider. Um, there was consideration of an old business item for an overview of proposed large lot incentives tonight. I make a motion that we defer that discussion to the next meeting. I'll second that. Um, it's been moved by Commissioner Birds and seconded by I'll give this to Fred to um, Commissioner Edwards to defer the overview of proposed lodge L incentives to the next all those in favor. I any opposed? That passes unanimously. Next up is um, two items under new business. The first one is a presentation of the 2026 planning commission schedule to consider. Okay. Um I just want to quickly go over this. This is just the actual dates of the planning commission. Uh just to point some things out. The first meeting in January. It'll be a Thursday because of the uh state of the uh city address is on Wednesday. Um so we kind of got kicked out. It's okay. Um and then the next anomaly would be September 30th. Um that's a week later based upon uh Fulton County Schools now has a fall break um that week instead of in October like it was this past year. And then um November, December again because of the holidays um and having to compress the meetings before Thanksgiving and Christmas. Um we don't include the meeting that you've called.

That's going to come next. That's the next agenda item. Yeah, it's I checked with Paul. We can't include it in here. It has to be a [clears throat] special on its own. So Okay. I asked the same question. I'm sorry. I didn't No, you're good. You're good. I have missing that in my packet. Oh, it's okay. It's that's fine. I just Okay. Any questions on the schedule? I move we approve it. Uh, it's been moved by Do we have a second? Second. [laughter] Um, it's been moved by Commissioner Edwards and seconded by Commissioner Mcnes to approve the proposed schedule for 2026. Okay. Next item on the agenda, new business is a request for the planning commission to have a special called planning commission meeting on January 14th, 2026. Did I do a vote on that? All was unanimous. Okay. Sorry. I'm sorry. Did you do a vote and I missed it? Um, you need I'm sorry. It's been moved and seconded to have to approve the 2026 Planning Commission meeting schedule. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? None. Passes unanimously. The second item on the agenda is for new business is to have a special call planning commission meeting on January 14th, 2026. I make a motion to accept that special called meeting of the planning commission on January 14th, 2026. Question. Um, you asked for people attending number correct. Right. I only got one. Well, that was a meeting for Yeah, I guess both of them. I both of them,

right? December and Well, no, I meant I believe it was January the special called and then the May meeting because it was technically the same week as um Memorial Day. [clears throat] So it's still on. Yeah, it's still on. Only Commissioner Mcnes couldn't be in attendance that I knew of. So Okay. So one of the clarifications is that the meeting will be at 6 p.m. on the 14th. At 6 PM. Yes. Is that correct? Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. So, are you My motion still stands to accept the special called planning commission meeting on January 14th, 2026 at 6 p.m. Second. Okay. It's been moved by Commissioner McNe, seconded by Commissioner Edwards to accept the special called meeting on January 14th, 2026 at 6 PM. All those in favor? Any opposed? There are none. Like to make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Do were there [laughter] any other items? It's too late. [laughter] It takes precedence. It's been moved by Commissioner James and seconded by Commissioner Mcnes to adjurnn. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing none, we are adjourned.